The ‘Brutal Freedom’ of Street Life. Challenges in Assisting Street Children out of Street Life

(1)

The ‘Brutal Freedom’ of Street Life

Challenges in Assisting Street Children out of Street Life

Ida Marie Lyså

Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of Master of Social Anthropology Department of Social Anthropology, University of Bergen

(2)

Front page illustration: Raul, 10 years old (www.chicosdelacalle.org, CAINA web page) “Kid/friend, I was born on the streets”

(3)

Preface

Finally! The last two years of fieldwork and writing have put me up to many tests; it has probably been two of the most challenging years of my life. I am grateful to a range of people who have guided me through my frustrations, joys and spelling- errors, and I owe them all my gratitude.

First and foremost I wish to thank my informants; the children attending CAINA and the staff working there. Thank you for letting me be curious, and for answering my questions and providing me with new ones. I think about you often.

I thank my academic supervisor, John Andrew McNeish, for feedback and advice.

A special thanks to my family for supporting me, whatever I do!

Thank you Tord, for reading through the draft and helping me get back on track. Thank you Espen, for helping me with the technical layout; the thesis ended up looking just the way I wanted it to. Thanks to everyone on the 8th floor, especially those in room 840; for making these two years interesting and enjoyable. Finally, thanks to all my friends, especially Gro, Wenche and Kim. Thank you for being supportive, but most of all, thank you for being you!

(4)

(5)

Chapter 1 Introduction

Cristian (18) has made a great effort getting his life together lately; he has come regularly to the day centre and tried to stay out of trouble. After 5 years on the street, he wants out. The problem is, he has a sentence hanging over him, armed robbery, and he ran away from the last home1 he lived in. Today is his big chance; Cristian, some coordinators and I are going to the Tribunal where Cristian is hoping the judge will give him another chance at staying in a home. He is exited, but very nervous. He is afraid they will arrest him right there. He says he is so glad we are going there with him.

The meeting is a success. Cristian has a huge smile on his face. This is the first time I have ever seen him this happy. He hugs all of us, saying that we helped him, he is sure it wouldn’t have gone so well if we hadn’t been there. He is so happy that, when crossing the eight-line road outside the Tribunal, he looses the paper he just received from the judge and has to run between the cars (eagerly waiting for a green light) to recollect it. The coordinators tell him to prepare himself; there might not be room in the homes he wants to stay in. Cristian however, is optimistic.

Back at the day centre, Cristian and I eat lunch. He has not eaten all day; he was too nervous earlier. The coordinators come down after making some calls, and tell Cristian that unfortunately he only has one option; he has to go to a place outside of the capital, housing a couple of hundred children. Cristian does not want to go there. He has heard about this place. He asks about some other homes, but the coordinators say that all of them are full. The excitement disappears from his eyes and he looses his appetite. He becomes quiet. The coordinators encourage him to be positive; maybe it won’t be so bad. Maybe he can stay there for some time, and then get a transfer, as time passes. Cristian says he would rather stay on the streets until there is room in another home, than go to that terrible place. His eyes become tearful; he gets up, and leaves for the streets without saying another word.

Alejandro (9) has not been at the day centre for weeks. Alejandro left his family a couple of moths ago after somebody robbed him and took his schoolbag. Since he was too afraid to go home, he left for the streets. Shortly after, his brother Raul (11) left too, and they reunited on the streets. A boy they had met on the streets told them about the day centre, and they came shortly after. Their mother has been searching for them since the beginning, contacting the day centre and asking for them. The children say their mother beats them and that they will never go back home. They hate living on the streets; they are constantly hungry and they want to live in a home. The staff has tried to be a mediator between the mother and the two brothers, asking her to give the children some time alone, telling her she would create more problems than she would do good if she did not calm down. Her continued interference might have the opposite effect on the two boys, and the staff was worried they might stop coming to the day centre, fearing they would be forced back home to their mother.

The staff tried to act fast; the children were young and were still new on the streets. The sooner they could help them find a place, the better. After a lot of searching, they managed to find a home the two boys could stay in together. This institution, however, was not adequate for kids with street experience, but it was the only option for the children at the time. The institution staff had difficulties reaching out to and connecting with the boys and Alejandro ended up trashing the kitchen. In a short amount of time, they both left. Raul went back to their mother and Alejandro left for the streets. The last time Alejandro came to the day centre, he had scars on his stomach, after fighting with some other kids on the streets.

Main argument

Cristian and Alejandro are two out of several hundred children I met during my fieldwork where I worked as a volunteer at a day centre (CAINA)2_{for street children in Buenos Aires.}

They were some of the children who shared with me their feelings and perceptions of living

1_{Even though the word home means both (family) home and (institutional) home, I have decided to use the same}

word in both cases, as this turned out to be the most preferable alternative. At times I use other words (such as e.g. institution for institutional home, or paternal home for the homes the children leave behind), but mostly I do not. I hope that the context will clear out potential misunderstandings.

2_{Centro de Atención Integral de la Niñez y Adolescencia (Centre for Integral Attention for Childhood and}

(8)

on the streets, and who opened up my eyes for the complexity of street children’s life. Both Cristian and Alejandro wanted to get out of street life, but not at any cost.

Initially, I wanted to do fieldwork on the streets, reaching the children who did not make use of the different programs available to them, to see how their everyday lives went by, but things turned out differently. I was told by people working with street children that this would not be a wise approach. They said that I should not wander the streets by myself (in areas where street children hang, especially at night) because it was dangerous for several reasons. First of all, the new drug paco3 made the children aggressive. Secondly, I did not know the town and I was an ‘easy prey’ being foreign, not fluent in the language, and a young woman. I had to find another way to reach the children, as I did not have any contacts that could potentially function as an assistant or at least a way into the street field. After being in contact with the Dirección General de la Niñez y Adolescencia,4 I was put in touch with CAINA, a governmental run day centre for street children in Buenos Aires. Two rounds of interviews later, I was given work there, as a volunteer. After getting access to what was to become my field site, my initial question (why the children did not use institutions available to them) was slightly modified; why do they use these institutions? As time went by, I realized that the children did not come on a regular and frequent basis and the initial question became relevant again. Since the children know about the centre’s existence and seem to enjoy staying there, why do they not come every day? What does the street offer these children? The coordinators at CAINA try to help the children out of the street situation, but out of those who do receive assistance in the form of access to a home, many escape and return to the street. In addition, many children do not want help to leave the street in the first place. Why is there such a low ‘success-rate’? Why do the children return to the street? Why are they not dependant on institutions such as CAINA?

The general aim of this thesis is to answer these basic questions. However, most of all, the thesis aims to provide an understanding of why helping street children out of the street life situation in challenging. In order to grasp this problem, a discussion around some of the dominating factors that complicate the act of assistance is necessary. The children’s individual

3_{Paco or ‘Pasta Base de Cocaina’ (PBC) is a drug extracted from coca leaves added a mixture of gasoline,}

kerosene and sulphuric acid. It is an easily accessible and very cheap drug. It is inhaled through pipes or metal cans or it can be smoked mixed with tobacco or marihuana. The ‘high’ appears only 30 seconds after consuming and lasts for around 5-8 minutes. One of my adult informants told me that after 6 months of extensive use, children who smoke paco become ‘like a 70 year old with Alzheimer,’ turned into a non-reversible state.

4

(9)

backgrounds are important in relation to this understanding, but it is equally important to show how the children solve their everyday challenges and how they adapt to their surroundings (street life) practically and psychologically. As I will attempt to show, the results of adaptation to street life do not necessarily correlate with the expectations the helpers have or with the norms on which homes are constructed. The encounter between street children and those trying to help them is therefore of importance; an encounter characterized by their respective (and at times, conflicting) expectations and interests. There are, on one side, independent street children figuring out how to live their lives, and on the other, adults attempting to help them, with their own ideas and perceptions about childhood and children’s needs and wants. By seeing children as active subjects in their own lives, not as mere receivers of assistance, the logic behind these conflicting notions appears.

Whereas the above mentioned points are subjects of discussion in the following chapters, this chapter will deal with the theoretical background on which this thesis is based. The ‘new paradigm’ in childhood theory stresses the contextual nature of childhood(s) with a particular focus on child agency. The latter will be of specific importance in this thesis, and I will make use of Pierre Bourdieu’s (2007) ‘theory of practice’ in this regard. By highlighting the structures which both shape and are shaped by street children’s agency, I wish to illustrate the processes that are at work both when the children enter, and potentially leave, a street life situation. Through seeing street life as a social field where particular interests are at stake, this thesis will show how the children’s greatest strength in one setting can become a considerable weakness in another, and how this affects the process of assisting street children out of street life. The second part of this chapter highlights the incompatibility between the street child situation and the contemporary childhood ideal, as well as the definitional challenges that exist in relation to the street child phenomenon. The final section of this introductory chapter will introduce the field site; CAINA, a day centre for street children in Buenos Aires.

Theoretical developments and clarifications

Childhood(s)

The study of childhood has only recently been given thorough emphasis in anthropological research. Whereas previously treated as a mere subcategory (where children were seen as

(10)

appendices of their families), the subject is now acknowledged as a topic of research on its own.5 Some anthropologists have conducted child-centred studies in the past (including the use of child informants), such as Margaret Mead (1967) who did pioneering work with her research on (childhood and) adolescence in Samoa as early as in 1928. Mead set out to question the universal existence of the conflicting nature of adolescence. Her conclusion was that adolescence was not universal at all; rather the social environment provided the decisive framework for the understanding and living of life. This has also been the key point in new developments of childhood research; childhood is not universal in nature, but socially and contextually constructed.

Before the formal establishment of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC), childhood theories were based on ideas of children being “natural, passive, incompetent and incomplete” (James & Prout 1997:x). Children were seen as “a defective form of adult, social only in their future potential but not in their present being” (James, Jenks & Prout 1998:6); they were rendered complete social human beings through adult influences and the process of socialization. Children were through of as a natural phenomenon with primordial characteristics, developing and maturing through set stages. In the 1990s, James and Prout (1997) introduced a ‘new paradigm’ in childhood theory, based on a series of approaches. First of all, the ‘new paradigm’ aims to look beyond theories of socialization and basing their approach on social constructionism, they stressed a contextual view of childhood, where social, cultural and historical surroundings determine how childhood is seen and experienced (James & Prout 1997:26-28). The authors recognize the universal biological immaturity childhood entails, but specifies that the understanding of childhood is particular and contextual; it is thus more correct to talk of childhoods, rather than one single childhood. Secondly, the autonomy of children’s worlds and their own perceptions, practices, motives and assumptions are put in focus. Like adults, children live structured lives, but in a system that is unfamiliar to that of adults, according to the authors. There is thus a need to understand the structures these systems are based on, i.e. structures created by the children themselves

5

According to James and Prout (1997), the immense focus on socialization and development (both in childhood theory and people’s everyday conceptions of childhood) has placed the child firmly within the family, making it extraordinarily resistant to change, despite theoretical developments stressing otherwise. Child-centred research has not been a typical career-climbing topic, which has lead to relatively little publishing on the topic (however, now a range of interdisciplinary outlets publish childhood research on a frequent basis, e.g. the interdisciplinary journal Children and Society (Blackwell) and Childhood (Sage). Similarly, Scheper-Hughes and Sargent note that there has been a lack of anthropological focus on domestic child abuse (until the mid 70s) due to a “naturalization of maternal sentiments” and the “strong ideologies of unconditional mother love” (1998:20). Eurocentric idea(l)s seem to have overshadowed cultural relativism on these points.

(11)

(James & Prout 1997:28-30). Thirdly, children are seen as a minority group (James & Prout 1997:30-31) aiming to challenge the existing power structures between adults and children, and the influence of interactionism stresses the active status of children. Children should be seen as agents in, and products of, social processes; as active subjects in their own lives. Finally, children must be acknowledged as a constant feature of all social worlds, as are adults. Children are not seen as incomplete, but as a cohort of social actors who have the same rights as citizens as adults, and the same status as research subjects as adults (James & Prout 1997:32-33, see also Qvortrup 1991). The concluding remarks around these approaches in the ‘new paradigm’ of childhood is an epistemological break from seeing the child as ‘becoming’ to conceiving the child as “a person, a status, a course of action, a set of needs, rights or differences – in sum, as a social actor”; that is “the ‘being’ child” (James, Jenks & Prout 1998:207).

Children are, however, still placed in a state of becoming and the term ‘childhood’ is still a problematic term amongst contemporary childhood researchers (Morrow 2007, Scheper-Hughes & Sargent 1998). According to Emma Uprichard (2008), children must simultaneously be seen as ‘being’ and ‘becoming’, since children must be studied in their own right, and since childhood must be acknowledged as a temporal concept. The dualism that appears to control and form ideas of childhood (versus adulthood), based on characteristics such as dependency and competency, must be overcome. Even though a conceptual change has occurred (focusing on the child as ‘being’ rather than as ‘becoming’), ideas of past and future still exist, not only in the minds of adults, but also in the minds of children themselves (Uprichard 2008). According to Corsaro (1997:18), part of the problem is the term ‘socialization’ itself. Since its connotations are forward-centred and individualistic, the term leads to an inescapable view of training and preparation for adult life (the so-called ‘state of becoming’). Corsaro stresses that socialization is “not only a matter of adaptation and internalization but also a process of appropriation, reinvention, and reproduction” including “how children negotiate, share, and create culture with adults and with each other” (1997:18). As the term contains specific connotations that overshadow its wider signification, Corsaro presents the term interpretive reproduction in order to capture the essence of child agency and participation, and children’s contribution to cultural production and change (1997:18).

These points correlate with my view on how children and childhood should be perceived; as both ‘being’ and ‘becoming,’ and as going through processes of socialization, i.e. “processes

(12)

of appropriation, reinvention and reproduction” (Corsaro 1997:18) of their surroundings. This view acknowledges both children’s autonomy as a group, as well as including the temporal aspect of life; the children also have ideas, thoughts and dreams of their pasts, presents and futures. Seeing children as “social actors shaping as well as being shaped by their circumstances” (James, Jenks and Prout 1998:6) also matches with Bourdieu’s theory of practice (2007). Bourdieu’s theory is not a model of socialization; his theory is meant to be used as a tool for understanding social life. However, his theory illustrates the interplay between agent and structure, explaining the connections between why and how people act as they do; be it through reproducing structural frames or breaking out of them.

Agency and structure

Attempting to overcome objectivist (structuralist) and subjectivist (existentialist) reductionist approaches to scientific research, Bourdieu introduced the academic field with a theory of practice unifying the two previously mutually exclusive approaches through seeing them in a complementary light. Bourdieu’s theory of practice is based on a “dialectic of the

internalization of externality and the externalization of internality” (2007:72, orig. emphasis),

meaning that agents internalize the objective structures that surround them (out of personal interest and gain), and thus partake in the production and reproduction of these same objective structures (that generated them in the first place). This generative view of societal continuity is further elaborated through the introduction of terms such as social fields, various types of

capital and in particular, habitus, which is the notion combining structure and agent. These

terms prove useful in scientific research on social life and the continuity of social division in society, and as will be shown, also in relation to street children. Bourdieu has been criticised for giving greater emphasis to the objective structures than to individual agency, something that hinders his theory of practice in overcoming the gap he aimed to fill (Jenkins 1996:91). Jenkins criticises Bourdieu’s unclear presentation of the agent as somewhat ‘unconscious’ of his actions since habitus (generated by the objective structures surrounding an agent) repeatedly is referred to as what generates practice (1996:77). Jenkins calls for a greater emphasis (amongst other things) on human agency, since “actors are more knowledgeable about the social world than Bourdieu is prepared to allow” (1996:97). An emphasis on human agency and individual strategy could in addition provide a greater understanding of the possibility of change; a topic which will be further elaborated throughout this thesis. Furthermore, the distinctiveness of street life will be illustrated through seeing it as a social field, street life adaptation will be elaborated using Bourdieu’s terms of habitus and child

(13)

agency (chapter four and five), and habitus and social fields will be used in the discussion around the encounter between street children and the coordinators, which will help explain some of the complications present in the act of assistance (chapter six). The following section will define Bourdieu’s concepts and clarify the manner in which these terms will be used.

Bourdieu defines habitus as “systems of durable, transposable dispositions” (2007:72, orig. emphasis), i.e. systems of values, attitudes, desires, motivations and perceptions providing the agent with an understanding of how to perceive, think and act in any given situation (Wilken 2008:37). Habitus does not determine or control, so to speak, a person’s behaviour, but works as an unspoken set of dispositions helping the agent make sense of the situations that appear, even if they are of an unfamiliar character. Habitus “arise from our particular position as members of one or several social fields”, which is determined by different conditions of existence such as social status, educational background, profession, region etc. (Terdiman 1987:811). Habitus can therefore be seen as the framing for human practice whereas social fields are the arenas where practice is performed (Wilken 2008:38-39).

Later on, I will argue that street children’s lives are characterized by movements through social fields. As will be shown, this move creates a disconnection and a disharmony between the social fields and the children’s habitus. Habitus is often understood as life lasting, but as Bourdieu also acknowledges, it has the potential to change (when the external surroundings of a person changes), even if it happens at a slow pace (Wilken 2008:38). It is the movement between social fields (the change in external surroundings) that lead to an alteration in habitus, and I argue that this is what happens when street children adapt to street life. However, as will be shown, the children’s transformation of habitus differs from Bourdieu’s notion of change in habitus, in that it happens at a much faster pace.

Other writers argue that street life can not be considered a social field (as in Bourdieu’s notion of a field), due to the fact that street life has no institutions of its own, that it is characterized by instability and that its autonomy can be questioned (Sandberg & Pedersen 2006:83). Sandberg and Pedersen prefer the term street culture, but they still see the street as a field in an analytical way (1006:83).6 As stressed by Wilken (2008:40), fields are not factual divisions

6_{Whether the term ‘culture’ should be seen as a less problematic labelling than the term ‘social field’ is a}

different discussion. In any case, using ‘social fields’ for analytical purposes is really what Bourdieu’s fields are meant to work as. The term ‘culture’ has appeared in Bourdieu’s writings in relation to his theory of practice. To

(14)

in society; they refer to relations between agents fighting for distinct forms of capital. A social field must be understood in terms of its defining content (i.e. the forms of capital of relevance within each field) and each field therefore has “a different logic and taken-for-granted structure of necessity and relevance” (Jenkins 1996:834). Thus, the struggle for power (relevant capital) in one social field, say the schoolyard, does not equal the struggle for relevant capital in the street field, merely because there are different and field-specific resources and interests at stake in different fields. According to Jenkins (1996:89), there is no clear manner of delineating or defining social fields, and Bourdieu himself states that social fields and their boundaries and limits are a matter for empirical investigation. Elsewhere it has been stated that the field can metaphorically be understood as a magnet; as something that exerts an invisible but forceful influence on patterns of behaviour upon all those within its range (Terdiman 1987:806). As will be shown in later chapters, street life has a ‘magnetic power’ upon street children. When (street) children enter the street field, they find themselves in a specific setting in which particular expectations toward action, thought and behaviour are required. Based on these points, I argue that it is appropriate to see the street (or street life) as a social field to which particular forms of capital are connected.

As mentioned, in each social field a struggle for the accumulation and possession of relevant capital takes place. In addition to material or economic capital, Bourdieu introduces the following forms of capital; social capital (familial relations, networks and connections), cultural capital (legitimate knowledge, education and competency) as well as symbolic capital, i.e., the knowledge of and the ability to convert specific capital into other forms of capital (Wilken 2008:39). Street capital (a form of cultural capital) is what street children fight for in the street field, and chapter four and five will deal with the accumulation of this form of capital in the street field. Moreover, as will be described in further detail in chapter six, although street capital is a necessity in the street field might become a hindrance in other social fields.

Problems with the ‘universal’ childhood

The contemporary western childhood image is a fairly recent construction; during the last three centuries it has gone through notable transformations, especially in relation to children’s role and value in the family. Previous to these transformations, children were of greater my knowledge, however, only when referring to the concept of ‘habitus’ (not when referring to ‘social fields’). See e.g. Terdiman, Translator’s Introduction to Bourdieu (1987:806), Jenkins (1996:92) and Wilken (2008).

(15)

economic and practical value to the household, through their roles as financial contributors to the household economy. In the contemporary (western) world, children are no longer expected to work. Work is now something children must be protected from (as stated in the CRC, article 32). There has been a shift from children being of practical importance to being “priceless in terms of their psychological worth” (Scheper-Hughes 1987:12).7 As living standards in Europe improved and people gave birth to fewer children, a change in people’s perceptions on the significance of the individual human life appeared (Scheper-Hughes 1987). Before this shift, uncertainties of individual survival (due to hardships and low living standards) led to a greater focus on collective survival (family, lineage etc.). Parents had to be emotionally distant to their children out of necessity, in order to psychologically protect themselves.8 As a result of the lowered mortality rate, parents could afford to get emotionally closer to their children. The bettering of living standards thus led to a greater emphasis on ideologies of individualism.

Ideas of children’s place and role in the family have therefore not gone unchanged in Europe over the latest decades, despite being treated as such (especially in relation to the ‘priceless’ emotional worth of children). It may seem that the contemporary western middle class childhood has been chosen as an ideal and universal childhood, which preferably should look like the following; children should be sorrow-free and protected, live in a nuclear family, go to school while their parents are at work and live in a safe suburb, with plenty of time for play and recreation. Innocence, protection and safety are key words in the description of the ideal childhood. The western image of childhood is however, far from the reality of most of the world’s children, both in the ‘west’ and the ‘rest’ of the world. There are, on the one side the differences that exist between wealthy countries in the industrialized world in relation to those in poor ‘industrializing countries.’ However, also between culturally and geographically close countries, the notion of childhood can vary significantly.

The notion of childhood is strongly connected to the notion of family. Like ‘childhood,’ the term ‘family’ is used uncritically, both as a method of measurement (e.g. in statistics, see Qvortrup 1991) and as a way of thinking. The family unit is seen as the preferable place for a

7

These ‘categories of value’ should not be thought of as exclusive, but rather as ‘transformations of focus.’

8_{Scheper-Hughes (1987:2) points to the contextual interpretation of the birth and the death of a child, based on a}

comparison between the ‘developed’ and the ‘developing’ world. In the ‘developed’ world the birth of a child is seen as ‘new life’, whereas it is experienced as a ‘threat to premature death’ in precarious areas in the ‘third world’. Consequently, child death is seen more as a misfortune than as a tragedy, in the ‘developing’ world.

(16)

child (article 9 in the CRC). However, the notion of family, in the same way as childhood, also differs according to context (and also within the ‘same context’). The nuclear family containing mother, father and child(ren) is the way family is thought of in an orthodox Norwegian context, and the rest of the relatives is seen as the extended family. We might have close emotional bonds to our extended family, but they are often separated from the nuclear family in terms e.g. of place of residence. Elsewhere, however, a family is not thought of as complete unless the parents of parents are included. In addition, single-parent families are of an increasing presence in the Norwegian context. What about homosexual couples with children, challenging the notion of same sex parents? Should not all these be considered ‘a family’? Family can mean different things to different people, at both global and local levels.

Through the international community’s ratification of the CRC, with the exception of USA and Somalia, all countries are held responsible for their children’s welfare. The convention is a western construction, and is therefore based on western ideas and perceptions of children’s needs and rights. The western middle class ideal of childhood has thus become a template for what childhood is and should be, in every country. The CRC is both universal and contextual in nature; it states that all children should have equal rights and simultaneously stresses children’s individual value. It is open for cultural and contextual interpretation, through the principle of ‘the best interest of the child.’ This raises additional issues, such as that of definitional power; who is to define what is best for the child? Human rights legislation is thus problematic, due to the contextual understanding of life and the possibility of conflict and (mis)interpretation of these universal rights (Shepher-Hughes & Sargent 1998). This criticism was set forward due to the realization that perceptions of terms and categories vary according to context; notions e.g. of childhood, family and parenthood vary in different societies. The CRC can thus be said to be ethnocentric in itself; being based on the western idea of childhood and the western ideology of individualism.

Academics have touched upon the fact that globalization processes are spreading the western childhood image, in particular to the elites in ‘developing’ countries. Through human rights legislation (CRC) the childhood ideal has been implemented into the national social policy in these countries. Stereotyped images of children as innocent victims or deviants have been exported to countries in ‘the South’ from industrial countries in ‘the North’ (Boyden 1997:197). Further, Boyden (1997) speaks of how child welfare and childhood is connected to the individual and the family; the wider social, structural society and political and economic

(17)

factors have been downplayed by the idea that the closer family unit is responsible for child welfare, where parents are to blame for eventual problems. This places an impossible responsibility on parents in poor parts of the world; on the one side because child-rearing practices vary, and on the other side because, even if ideas of the ideal childhood were present, these groups might have scarce resources and scant possibility of following this ideal. The structural violence of poverty has also been used in order to explain maltreatment in shantytowns, something that gives an extended understanding of the strategies people make use of, e.g. in child-rearing, as these strategies are seen in relation to the economic and social realities their lives are part of.

Anchored in the CRC and contemporary ideas of childhood, several NGOs and various programmes are developed to help children in need all over the world. These aims can be based both on feelings of responsibility and of possibility. The ‘west’ is out to save the ‘underdeveloped rest’ in the light of the CRC, thinking they have the knowledge and financial possibility to do so, and also seeing their approach as normative (this can be illustrated in the name of organizations, such as Save the Children). However, sometimes this helping hand has done more harm than good due to not realizing what consequences actions can have, not seeing phenomena in their context, as well as neglecting to confer with the people in question (seeing people as passive receivers). The following project, carried out on the basis of good intentions and the CRC, are examples of projects leading to unwanted and unexpected results: In 1982, UNICEF launched the ‘child survival campaign,’ based on the use of several technological innovations, with the aim to decrease infant and child mortality (Scheper-Hughes & Sargent 1998:4-6). In Brazil, where they have done years of research, they saw how breast milk was replaced by Nestle bottles of milk, and how, as time passed, breast milk was seen (by mothers) as non-pure and bad, leading to children receiving less nutritive food. Scheper-Hughes and Sargent found that instead of saving children’s lives, these ‘technological fixes’ (which was a subject of suspicion for anthropologists from the start) rather prolonged children’s deaths (1998:4).

Street children’s childhoods – an oxymoron

Anthropological research on street children has, amongst other topics, focused on the ethnocentric views on childhood held by western academics. Not only have street children’s lives been compared to the ideal western middle class image of childhood, instead of the children living in their own countries, cultures and socioeconomic contexts (Aptekar & Adebe

(18)

1997), but this ethnocentric view has also led to misguided theories of ‘abandonment’ (Panter-Brick 2000). Several studies have discussed reasons for the origins of street children (Rizzini & Lusk 1995, Aptekar 1994), attempting to understand why these children experience such heavy mistreatment (Hecht 1998, Aptekar 1991, Leigh Tierney 1997).

Street children form a group of children in great contrast to the ideal childhood image, in every way. The great majority of the children frequenting CAINA are sole providers for their own survival. In addition, they reside on the streets, they engage in sexual and criminal activities, they are exposed to influences seen as dangerous and ‘corrupting,’ as well as not attending school. Furthermore, they move around in the urban landscape with no adult control, another factor situating ‘street childhood’ outside the realm of the ideal childhood. Not only are these children without parental guidance and protection, they have responsibilities and partake in activities that are seen as highly inappropriate; activities that are part of the ‘adult world.’ The term street child can be seen as an oxymoron, as two incompatible words; words that are seemingly contradictive.9 Similarly, ‘street children’s childhoods’ can be read as an oxymoron; not only because street children stand in great contrast to the ideal childhood image, as will be discussed below, but because these children are sometimes portrayed as having no childhood at all.

The fact that innocence and protection are what ‘western’ beliefs of childhood are based on could be why theories on abandonment are turned to in order to explain the street child phenomenon.10 Children who are not living with their families and protected by their parents, are seen as abandoned since they are denied the proper place of childhood, and since their parents are not acting in accordance with their responsibility. Panter-Brick (2000) argue against the international ethnocentrism and misconception of children in marginalized situations, such as refugee and street children. The idea of abandonment is incorrect, as evidence seems to suggest that this rarely is the case. Abandonment was similarly never mentioned among the street children coming to CAINA as the reason for why they were on the streets.The great majority of children at CAINA left their parental homes by their own choice.

9_{Child soldier and child labour can also be read as an oxymoron for these same reasons.}

10_{See Veale, Taylor and Linehan (2000) for an analysis on the psychological processes that may operate in the}

(19)

According to Scheper-Hughes and Hoffman (1998:367), street children do not choose to leave their families, nor do they run away. They are rather driven from their parental homes, due to a variety of reasons, such as chronic hunger, neglect, physical or sexual abuse. In relation to these factors street life is seen as preferable. I would rather, contrary to Scheper-Hughes and Hoffman (1998), use the word choose, as I believe being driven evokes a rather inactive view of the children. Several researchers have emphasized the conscious choice made by both street children and children in other ‘extreme’ situations in response to dire circumstances (Reynolds, Nieuwenhuys & Hanson 2006:292, Boyden 1997:197, Evans 2004:70). At CAINA, there were several push and pull factors involved in the children’s decisions to leave their families, including those listed above (by Shepher-Hughes and Hoffman). One could call the action of leaving home ‘a force of circumstance,’ but child agency must not be overlooked. Many find it similarly hard to believe that some children would themselves enrol in military service (Rosen 2007), or to accept children agency in relation to the labour industry (Nieuwenhuys 1996).

The lack of acknowledgement of child agency is related to parental responsibility. Parental wrong-doing was always referred to as the reason for why children were on the streets amongst the general public, who were not involved in street child assistance. The children’s ‘lack of education,’ both formal and at home, was seen as the main explanation (some also spoke of ‘a lack of culture’). Implicit in this belief is a firm idea of children’s position in a family, and that parents are to protect and direct children’s actions.11 Without underestimating or opposing this belief, I wish to lead the discussion over to child agency. I do not mean here that parents play no part in the process of entering street life. Domestic abuse and mistreatment in the family was often mentioned among my informants as the reasons for why they were on the streets. However, I see that turning the attention towards agency is important, for several reasons. First of all, it is in line with the developments of childhood research and it reflects a more nuanced and accurate picture of reality. Secondly, it challenges the preordained assumptions many have towards children’s active participation in their own lives, and it is useful in this regard, because it can prevent the creation of misguided ideas of what kind of people they are. Thirdly, a possible outcome of neglecting the idea of child agency,

11

Another example of parental blaming is found in a more familiar context, in the realm of Norwegian asylum policy. In relation to unaccompanied minors (asylum seekers) coming to Norway, the anchor child theory is of frequent use (Engebrigtsen 2002). This theory is based on the idea that cynical parents send of their children to rich countries, in order to ask for family reunification. This act strongly contradicts the intense emotional value of children, and could be a reason for the creation of these ideas.

(20)

especially when seen in relation to crime and violence, might be that children are perceived as ‘evil’ or ‘lost,’ without attempting to understand what motivates children’s actions. A child over whom parents do not have control is seen as not only ‘wrong,’ but also dangerous.

Children in ‘extreme’ situations, such as exploitative child labour and child soldiers, are like street children, seen as children who have been deprived of their childhoods. In several books and articles on street children, phrases such as deprived, robbed, stolen, or lost their childhood often occur (see e.g. Leigh Tierney 1997). However, “clearly what has been ‘stolen’ or ‘lost’ is not the biological development from infancy to childhood, but rather the conditions germane to a particular type of childhood” (Hecht 1998:72); namely the western middle class childhood. Childhood is therefore seen as more than a temporal phenomenon, and using the above phrases reflect a belief that the western ideal childhood is the only valid childhood. If children are persons under the age of 18 years (as stated in the CRC), however, then street children, even if their lives are hard and horrible, have just as much a childhood as any other child simply due to their existence. If one is to see the western childhood as the only valid one, these children can be said to never have had one. The use of these phrases provokes reactions, the same way as numbers of street children have been accused of being exaggerated, or in the same way as CAINA can exaggerate in particular cases in order to get assistance more efficiently. Perhaps this is what it takes to get people’s attention?

Street child definition

‘Street children are simply poor children in the wrong place’ (Scheper-Hughes and Hoffman 1998:358).

I open this section with the above quote for two reasons; first of all because it makes associations to Mary Douglas’ term ‘matter out of place’ (also underlined by the authors), which illustrates people’s feelings about street children. Whereas children running around unsupervised on shantytown streets are simply seen as children; as soon as these same children enter urban streets, they become street children (Scheper-Hughes & Hoffman 1998:358). The street changes connotations according to location; urban streets being the ‘wrong location.’ Secondly, streets are ‘the wrong place’ not only in a practical sense, but also in an abstract way; childhood is to be lived in a family setting, not alone and away from family and adult control and protection.

(21)

The number of street children worldwide is hard to estimate, largely due to the lack of a universally accepted definition. Despite disagreements concerning the number and definitions of street children, there is a consensus that large urban cities in ‘Third World’ countries are home to most of the world’s street children. In the 1980s, UNICEF estimated that the number of street children in the world had reached 80 million, and that 40 million of these were living in Latin America (Tacon 1981, 1983 in Aptekar 1994).12 These numbers have been questioned and said to be an over-estimate by some analysts. The anthropologist Tobias Hecht (1998), doing research on street children in Recife, Brazil, speaks in further detail of the confusion of numbers of street children in this region. Hecht sees this confusion as a process where numbers are uncritically used and treated as facts, without investigating their source (1998:99). One person cites another, who already cited another and the numbers end up living a life of their own.13 Hecht found that instead of an estimated 80.000 street children in Recife, the actual number surveyed by several teams of experienced street educators over the course of three nights counted 212 children (Hecht 1998:100).14 One of the reasons behind the allegedly misguided numbers of street children is said to not only stem from definitional disagreements, but also due to organisations manipulating numbers in order to receive external attention and funding for their projects (Connolly & Ennew 1996).

The term ‘street children’ has, during the last decades, undergone a long lasting academic discussion around its adequacy, and several terms have been suggested in order to portray and describe this population more accurately. Critics have argued that the various definitions proposed are either too wide or too narrow; too including or too excluding. Terms and definitions exist for a reason; they enable us to point to and understand exactly what phenomenon we are dealing with. However, constant disagreement leading to nothing but confusion is not fruitful. This section will look into some of the suggested definitions, and the ‘characteristics’ of street children in Buenos Aires will work as empirical data in relation to this discussion. Finally, my own remarks on the adequacy of the initial term used (‘street children’) will be discussed as the preferable alternative to describe this population.

12_{UNICEF numbers had reached 100 million in 2006 (}_{http://www.unicef.org/sowc06/profiles/street.php}₎

Accessed 19.11.2008.

13_{This can be problematic for two reasons; first of all, when numbers reach such heights people might feel}

overwhelmed by the situation and feel that one can not do much to solve the problem. Secondly, when (or if) the correct numbers appear, projects might loose credibility and support.

14_{The frequently used number of street children in Brazil (with a total of 114 million inhabitants) was 7 million,}

accounting for 6% of the population in 1993. Out of the 1.3 million inhabitants in Recife at the time, 80.000 would be street children according to these numbers (Hecht 1998:100). See also Hecht (2000).

(22)

In the 1980s, UNICEF introduced the terms ‘children of the street’ and ‘children on the streets’ attempting to accurately describe the street child population; the former in relation to children living on the streets without contact with their families, and the latter to children staying with their families, but working on the streets to support their families economically (Panter-Brick 2002). The prepositions of and on are meant to explain the relationship the child has to the street, but prove too rigid when put into practice; because “how often does a child have to sleep in the street to be of the street?” (Hecht 1998:103). Benno Glauser, doing fieldwork on street children in Asunción, Paraguay, found these defined categories as problematic and too rigid, as the children could not be divided into such static forms in reality (1997:146). The children made use of the street in a variety of ways; not only in relation to their homes or families (if they had one), but also depending on factors such as work (demand), climate (time of the year), the presence of other institutions, and time spent in jail (Glauser 1997). Panter-Brick (2002) sees ‘urban children at risk’ to be a preferable alternative, whereas Connolly and Ennew (1996) refers to the phrase ‘children out of place’ as an alternative to ‘street child.’15 Despite critiques and suggestions, however, children on and of the street are the most frequently used terms when referring to the street child phenomenon.

CAINA staff use a modified version of these terms, namely ‘children in a street situation’ (chicos en situación de calle). This puts focus on the social context (the situation) as the determining factor in the way these children live and experience their lives. Other informal terms were also used, in order to describe the levels of street experience, such as núcleo duro (‘hard core’) and chicos cronificados (‘chronic children’). These terms refer to the children who have stayed a long time on the street. The UNICEF terms (children of and on the street) were not used much by the staff, as these were not thought of as reflections of reality,.16 The children, however, used the term ‘children of the street’ when questioning me about the existence of street children in Norway.

15_{This was the name of a planned workshop on street children (in 1995), and was meant to refer to (street)}

children’s dislocation from the places regarded as ‘in place’ in the western ideal childhood image.

16

When discussing this definition, a woman working at CAINA told me: “These children are not of the street, the street did not give birth to them. They are of their parents!”

(23)

The term pibe (and piba17 for girls, meaning ‘kid’) was the most frequently used term by both CAINA staff and the children coming to the day centre.18 Even though this term is not directly describing street children in particular, it deserves mentioning, due to its frequent use and important connotations. Both Eloisa Martin (2004) and Archetti (1999) explore the use and meaning of this emic category in relation to self-identification amongst Argentinean men. According to Martin (2004:7), a pibe is a ‘real man’ whose masculinity (seen as the central value of manhood) is defined by endurance or aguante (referring to values such as courage, moral and physical strength).19 Also, through analyzing cumbia villera texts,20 Martin found that “the themes played out in the cumbia villera indiscriminate consumption of drugs and alcohol, robbery, vagrancy, [and] unrepressed sexuality […]” (2004:8). There is a certain legitimization of robbery and of the consumption of drugs and alcohol for the pibe, as long as one is in control. The connection between (pibe) values, consumption of drugs, and criminal activities will be discussed in further depth in chapter four, in relation to notions of morality and discourses of right and wrong.

‘Street child’ term: adequate or inadequate

Panter-Brick (2002) is of the opinion that the term ‘street children’ is an inadequate term for this population. She argues that it obscures the heterogeneity of the children’s lives and that it does not correspond to the child’s movements and experiences. Additionally, she stresses that it contains pitying connotations; that it deflects attention from other children equally struck by poverty and social exclusion (but not living on the streets), and that it can be seen as more a reflection of social and political agendas of institutions and organizations rather than of reality (2002:149). Punch (2002) argues that the phrase ‘urban children at risk’ is a better alternative.

In this thesis I argue for the opposite; for the adequacy of the term ‘street children.’ I see the term street children as a wide term, illustrating rather than obscuring the heterogeneity of the children’s lives, since it includes all children who have a relationship to the street of a ‘stronger degree,’ either as a place of work and/or residence. The term corresponds to the child’s movements and experiences, being the overall determinant. Further, I believe one

should feel pity for these children. Feeling sad and compassionate on behalf of others can

17_{Whether piba differs from the term pibe (apart from in a mere grammatical way in accordance to gender), I do}

not know. The terms seemed to be used in the same way, and this thesis will use the theorization around this term for both biological genders.

18_{See the front page of the thesis.}

19_{The great majority of the children attending CAINA come from villas miserias.} 20

(24)

hardly be said to be negative? As long as one does not underestimate the strength of these children, pitying them for their rough lives is only human. Street life was perhaps preferable to staying home for many of the children I spoke with, but certainly not what they believed to be a good life. The fact that it deflects attention from other children equally struck by poverty and social exclusion (children who do not live on the streets) might be so, but this other group of children do not live on the streets and can not be called street children for this exact reason. I do agree that both street children and other poor children in urban settings can be characterized as ‘urban children at risk.’ However, the term ‘urban children at risk’ is a misguiding replacement; it can be said to be placed at the other end of the spectrum, lacking what the term ‘street children’ is argued to have too much of (specifying the contextual reality of the children). ‘Urban children at risk’ obscures the reality of street children’s lives. My point is not to understate the given that children suffer in different ways. The life of a child living on the street is not necessarily worse than the life of his/her younger sibling who stayed behind, or of other children living in difficult circumstances in urban shantytowns. The point is not to create a hierarchy system of pain and suffering; it is rather to define a population as correctly as possible. Children living on the streets are in a specific situation, and is there not a need to specify this? I agree that the term can be a reflection of social and political agendas of institutions and organizations, but it does not make it inadequate. The children are street children, irrespective of the agenda to organizations. Furthermore, one must realize that street children make up a heterogeneous group in relation to the importance the street has for the individual child, as well as the particular child’s usage of the street. However, as stressed, the street and the children (persons under 18 years of age) are the common denominators. For illustrative purposes, one can say that the reasons for why street children should be called street children also apply for other groups of children, such as child soldiers and child labourers. These groups contain an equally heterogeneous population, but the common denominators such as warfare and work place these children within a setting one can not escape when referring to these groups.

Street children in Buenos Aires

It has been affirmed that a variety of childhoods exist across the globe. Street children’s lives in Buenos Aires are not equal to that of street children in London. Even within the capital of Buenos Aires, street children make up a heterogeneous population. For illustrative purposes, street children in Buenos Aires can be divided into three ‘rough’ groups; children working in the city (young children mostly) sometimes with adults nearby, (children of) cartoneros, and

(25)

children attending CAINA.21 These groups are not necessarily exclusive or static. However, I never saw children from the first two groups at CAINA, but rather on various locations in the capital of Buenos Aires. My interaction with them was minimal, but I daily observed them and sometimes engaged in conversation with them.

Young working children (3-6 years old) were often found on the main shopping streets of Buenos Aires. These children, alone or in groups, often stayed in a specific location, and would stop passers-by for money or sell items. Some seemed to be engaged in cooperative relationships with each other; they split up and got back together after a while to see what results they had achieved. A couple of children often sat in the middle of the street playing the accordion for money. At the metro (subte), there were often two or three children (sometimes also teenagers or young people with babies on their arms) standing next to the ticket counter, waiting for change. These children were not only standing at the central stations, but could also be found further out at other subte stops in the suburbs. Sometimes they asked for money, and sometimes people pushed their leftover coins over to the side without being asked. Rumours had it (from more than one source) that these children were ‘rented’ and that they had set hours standing there (even the term ‘mafia-operation’ was used).22 In the subte carriages, there were always a lot of salesmen and entertainers (musicians) and among these were several children, selling everything from stickers to colouring books, or juggling and singing. The families of some of these children were sitting at the end stations waiting for the children as they were selling their goods.

In December 2007, the yearly counting of street children took place in Buenos Aires.23 They found that the majority of the children on the streets were cartoneros (or children of cartoneros). Cartoneros is a profession which appeared after the 2001 economic crisis, due to the newly impoverished population. Cartoneros recycle carton, they collect carton and paper

21

I am not attempting to create different categories of street children in Buenos Aires. Rather, in order to illustrate the differences that exist, and the necessity of seeing street children as a heterogeneous term, I choose to do it this way. I also observed other children on the streets of Buenos Aires that didn’t fit into these groups, i.e. older children that did not come to CAINA

22

One of my adult informants told me such a situation. Taking the train to work every morning, he observed a middle-aged woman with 24 children standing behind her, in an array. The children were of all ‘shapes and colours’, about the same ages, so he was certain that they were not all hers. He believed they were all begging money for her.

23

The annual counting was executed by the EM (Equipo Movil, part of the government measures to assist street children), with the help of CAINA staff and other people working with street children. The date, 16th of December 2007, was chosen for several reasons: it was a night to a Monday (a school day) and children who go home to see their families often do it on weekends. Report: Consejo de los Derechos de Niños, Niñas y

(26)

from the streets of Buenos Aires, which is paid for by the kilo, and shipped of to the provinces. The results of the counting gave the following picture: out of a total count of 798 children, 49,5% of the children were on the streets with an adult family member, recycling carton. These children lived in a house with their family in the Buenos Aires province, outside the capital borders, and they were on the streets working for family income. These children compose a different group than those arriving at CAINA.24 The 2001 economic crisis lead not only to the presence of cartoneros, and children working as cartoneros on the streets of the capital, but also to a rise in the number of street children coming to CAINA.

According to CAINA statistics, between 1997 and 2003 the amount of children attending the day centre increased by 178%, and during the period of the crisis in 2001, the number increased by 30%. This number has stabilized, and now there are between 40 and 50 children arriving each day. Amongst people working with street children in Buenos Aires (CAINA and EM staff);the children coming to CAINA are said to be the toughest street kids, those with the most street experience. Almost all of the children come from Argentinean families living in extreme poverty in the province of Buenos Aires. Lack of material goods and basic needs, and domestic violence (often including alcoholism) are reasons for their street situation. The majority of the children leave home themselves (hardly any are abandoned). Often, the introduction to street life is through siblings, other family members or children from the suburbs; many of the children coming to CAINA have brothers, sisters or cousins on the streets. Adult company on the streets is absent, but many keep in touch with their families (a sporadic connection), and visit them from time to time. The children’s ethnic background is Argentinean, and almost all the children had a dark skin complexion.

CAINA – field site

Established in 1991, CAINA is the first of several governmental measures to assist street children in Buenos Aires. The centre is open on weekdays from 09:00-16:00 (most children leave after lunch at 13:00). The rest of the day/night is spent on the street or in other public spaces, such as at the subte, at train stations, in parks and city buildings. The children frequent the day centre with a high rate of rotation, and they compose a very diverse group. Some have

24

(27)

years of street experience, others have only just started living on the street. What they have in common is that they come to have a meal (breakfast and lunch), a shower25 and a change of clothes, to play games, and to talk to and be listened to by the coordinators working there. The children can partake in workshops (circus, ceramics, literature, music, art, school etc), get assistance in obtaining their identity papers (Documento Nacional de Identificacion), receive health care, and help to get out of the street situation. The children attending are of all ages (0-18 years), with a majority of boys between the ages 12-17. The upper age limit is set to (0-18, but also after this age, they can come and visit once a month (those with small children can come Fridays for medical attention). The vast majority of the children attending CAINA live on the streets of Buenos Aires (81%), hardly anyone live in homes (1%), and 12% live at home with their families.26 The children become familiar with the centre’s existence through friends on the streets.

The staff’s main aim is to get the children away from the street and attempt to re-integrate them with their families or suburbs. When re-integration with the children’s families is not possible (either because the family is not to be found, or because the child refuses to go home), the staff alternative measures are turned to, such as derivation27 to homes.28 These processes are based on the children’s wishes, and are never initiated by force. The staff acknowledges that the children are active subjects; they choose to come to CAINA and they choose what they want to partake in. They know that force will not lead to wanted results, it would rather lead to the children stop coming. However, the children have to follow the rules at CAINA in order to stay at CAINA. The staff consists of 30 people, and is composed of professionals with different academic backgrounds (social-workers, psychologists, sociologists, lawyers) and of people working with general maintenance (cooking and cleaning). Every day a meeting takes place where individual ‘cases’ are discussed. The centre can be said to work as a ‘mediator’; as a contact institution between the children and the government/their families.

CAINA is one out of several governmental institutions established to assist the street child population in Buenos Aires. Two internet cafés are available free of charge (they also serve

25_{The possibility to take a shower is appealing to the children (hard to find elsewhere), and thus a strategic}

choice by CAINA

26_{CAINA statistics. January-October 2006. The last 6% live in shelters.} 27

Derivación. This verb is deliberately used by the staff, in order to avoid words with specific connotations of control and force (such as ‘place/put’ in a home).

28_{Homes. Two different homes exist: therapeutic homes, homes terapéuticos (for drug misuse or psychological}

problems), and homes where the children can live together with other children (communidades convivenciales). It is hard to find space for the children in both these homes, especially in the latter.

(28)

small meals and show movies). A mobile team (EM) operating 24 hours a day all year, both reach out to the children on the streets and respond to calls from neighbours, families or the children themselves. In addition, an office in contact with the different available homes (state-owned, church led and NGO) is part of the government program. Finally, shelters (paradores) and two day centres for children of cartoneros have been established. These different operators can contact each other when specific cases are discussed (e.g. to know more about the whereabouts of a specific child). The children are often familiar with several of these (in particular CAINA, the EM and the internet cafés).

Structure of thesis

The second chapter will deal with the methodological advantages and challenges I encountered during my fieldwork. Furthermore, it will deal with the implications of doing research as a volunteer and in an institution. The establishment of the ‘new paradigm’ in childhood theory, in which children must seen as social actors (both being shaped by and shaping their surroundings), has led to the appearance of some methodological and ethical dilemmas, which will also be discussed in this chapter. Furthermore, some ethical considerations which are of importance when doing research with children, and in particular, with children in a vulnerable situation, will be of focus.

Chapter three aims to provide an ethnographic insight of the setting in which I met the children. Even if no two days were the same, I will attempt to portray an idea of the daily activities taking place at the day centre through ’A day at CAINA.’ I aim for this chapter to portray the children as I saw them; as human beings with their own feelings, joys and frustrations.

Chapter four will deal with the psychological adaptation to street life, analyzing the processes of identity formation at play. This chapter will speak of the changes the children go through after entering the street context, and I will argue that entering street life leads to an alteration in the children’s habitus. I will give room to a section on the children’s backgrounds (from shantytowns), arguing that their backgrounds can be said to constitute a form of ‘brutal knowledge’ which enables the children to cope with street life. Furthermore, street life

The ‘Brutal Freedom’ of Street Life. Challenges in Assisting Street Children out of Street Life